User talk:Fightin' Phillie

Good Catch - I was intending for the page to be

talk) 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem, though considering you are not a brand new wikipedia user, I probably should have left a real message here instead of templating you. Have a good one,Theseeker4 (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fightin' Phillie. You have new messages at Darth Panda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I certainly appreciate your nice contact. However, After starting a User page on 18 DEC, I was almost immediately "attacked" by OuroborosCobra over his concept of what was important. I was polite and mentioned I was new....but he was relentless in his obnoxious and overtly rude comments that by 21 DEC I had decided to simply walk away and not bother doing anything on or with Wikipedia. I would think that a licensed Professional Educator would be the exact kind of person you'd want reading articles and spotting typos, et cetera. I am a Special Education teacher at a Secured Facility for extremely "troubled" youth and am regulary verbally and/or physically attacked by my students....I don't need that kind of BS from some punk wannabe like OuroborossCobra! Maybe he needs his leash yanked back. Cadet Programs (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed a licensed Professional Educator, then surely you know that name calling and bickering over such a thing as Wikipedia is pointless. Anywho, I admire your enthusiasm, and encourage you to continue editing Wikipedia; don't let one user prevent you from spreading your knowledge across the world. However, while I stand by Cobra's decision not to include the patch because it is not an official item of Civil Air Patrol, that doesn't mean there aren't other options available. Take, for example,

this article. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, so I take your advise and start a NEW PAGE about CAP patches. Within two hours some fool has deleted all the work! AND, I have a snotty note from the RUDE OuroborosCobra person again! I can't believe some prick has the right to delete an article with NO due process?? YOU have been nice to me but I am absolutely disgusted by this treatment....perhaps you can reinstate my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Patches Thank you for being polite---unlike others! Cadet Programs (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, far from a "snotty note," I left one suggesting that the article may have merit for existing. I feel that standards should be maintained, but that is hardly snotty. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I thought I'd mention that I removed the "I can't be the only one" section on the article's talk page. Removing comments is bad form but screw it, calling for rioting because people need to die is a lot worse. If your question to the editor who added that was earnest rather than rhetorical, you should take it up on his talk page. Hope you don't mind, Kizor 13:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

No references, no evidence of notability. For that matter, only relevant in Pennsylvania under limited circumstances, rather than applying to CAP as a whole.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

While you have indeed improved the article, the main problem is that it does not assert notability, and has no third party sources showing such (all that you added were primary...first party...sources). That is one of the keys to keeping the article around. If you can find some news sources, etc, that meet our WP:Verifiability policy, I'll be more than happy to cancel the AfD. To be honest, the same concern applies to several of the new CAP articles you've created, this just stood out the most. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to take a look at the history my my user talk page, and see if you can prevent the anon from copying and pasting contents from Talk:Civil Air Patrol there? There is absolutely no reason for it to be getting duplicated there, copied and pasted, and the anon doing it is doing that same insult crap in the edit summaries that has been the hallmark of this little debate. It is getting vandalistic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, thought you were an admin. Sorry to bother you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!! I re-took your advice and started a Gallery on the Commons. Please add ANY patch pics you can. I wonder how long it will take the Stasi to find and try to delete THIS content. Thanks again for YOUR support! 68.187.89.72 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Patches[reply]

Oh no, I'm so sorry, I forgot to tell you. Since you moved your name to Fightin' Phillie, all of your subpages should have been moved there also. If you look for those same articles under your new name, you will find them all safe and sound. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&from=Fightin%27+Phillie&namespace=2 — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao, yeah, that's how it goes sometimes :P — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that, at least for the time being, the Community Service Ribbon can now be awarded to both Cadets and Senior Members, per the recent CAPR 39-3 ICL. I'd change the article myself, but I don't want to interfere with your current work. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to delete this image, as the Flickr user has set it to All Rights Reserved. Make sure that when you upload something from Flickr, it is either public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. It cannot be Creative Commons Noncommercial or Nonderivative. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the original holder if he would release it via GNU here. Maybe there will be a response someday. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.

1. Basically, all CAP images should theoretically be on Commons, since official CAP-produced images will be in the public domain. The only images (of any kind, not just CAP) that should be on Wikipedia are non-free fair-use images. I keep watch of the CAP categories both here and on Commons, so regardless of where an image is uploaded, it'll eventually get to the correct location.
2. Wikipedia will detect any exact duplicates of an image (based on the file's
   hash sum
   ), either here or on Commons, once it has been uploaded. If a copy exists, one of them can be deleted without problem. However, the sites mostly rely on users to properly categorise images, so non-exact copies can be found. This, of course, does not happen most of the time. I've found probably a dozen CAP images on Wikipedia that were never categorised.
3. There are various tools to help with image tasks, mostly with transfering or uploading to Commons. If you look on my userpage, in the top-left box, there are three image-related links: CommonsHelper allows you to move images from Wikipedia to Commons (when appropriate), Flickr-to-Commons helps transfer images directly from Flickr to Commons, Free Image Search Tool (FIST) does exactly what it states, and Flickr Search limits the keyword search to only Commons-compatible images. There are various others, but I'm most familiar with these three...they are all I really need. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mtaonline.net/~bcvcap/index.htm

My pleasure to try my hand at improving the Civil Air Patrol articles.

Hey, thank you for the message. I definitely have a good time here! And telling people about US - don't worry about this, I do that every day, whether talking to my friends, or making the articles on czech wikipedia about America :) I'm doing my best, because this country is great, and people should know that. By the way, good luck with your officer commission, and good luck in the Air Force! Above all! --Novis-M (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mr. Airman, do you know what uniforms is USAF going to use in tactical enviroments, like for the spec ops? I don't think they are going to use ABUs - not good camouflage, not good for combat, I guess. Thanks for answer. --Novis-M (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. In

Security Forces is using downrange, but I imagine that most AF personnel that are imbedded with Army units (such as TAC-Ps) would wear what the Army is using (ACUs), but that's just a guess. In short - I have no idea! Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For fixing my rack! Phils) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Obama Timeline

Welcome! I'm sure it will take a concerted effort by many future-minded editors to maintain the Timeline as lean as possible without upsetting our fellow editors. If we can get new editors to just report the event they are reporting and not add explanatory tags, no matter how mundane, we can establish a standard for future editor visits. Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to this edit.

Two points:

1. The D&C article is a dead link and therefore is useless for purposes of WP:Verifiability
2. The remaining "sources" come from three websites: Wilmorite's (the commercial developer), Reporter (the student magazine), and RIT itself. Nobody would consider any of these Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Finally, why not hit the library and dig up a source or two that will actually improve the article? People have recently done this for the RIT-related article GravitySimulator which is now vastly improved in terms of WP:Verifiability.

—129.21.179.32 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you :^)

You're obviously well versed in the art of wikia if you're adding banners. Why not shoulder some of the burden yourself instead of just nagging others? I would most certainly edit articles all the time if there weren't other things going on. No one is claiming that the information is incorrect or malicious -- why are you passing gas then running? At least bring the discussion to the article's talk page stating X, Y, and Z instead of just harassing those who revert your edits. This way, it becomes a community topic instead of a personal one. We (the community) will certainly discuss the idea until a decision is made, and until then leaving the article in it's "last known" state is good. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement	My response
"Why not shoulder some of the burden yourself instead of just nagging others?"	I don't believe WP:RS exist that establish the notability of this shopping center. Why would I look for something that I don't believe exists? Furthermore, why do you consider adding improvement templates "nagging"?
"No one is claiming that the information is incorrect or malicious -- why are you passing gas then running?"	Actually, several people have questioned the implicit claim that this shopping center is notable—see WP:SOURCES#Sources states, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
"At least bring the discussion to the article's talk page stating X, Y, and Z instead of just harassing those who revert your edits."	When someone challenges your edits, the ideal for which to strive is to explain, citing WP:Policies and guidelines, why you made those edits. Instead, you are crying "harassment" at the first voicing of disagreement?

—129.21.177.112 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to the paper articles provided. Now you need a database to read them. More reliable, sure, easier to access, no. Either way, if it makes you happy, C'est la vie.--Terrillja _talk 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, I moved your “option #0” to the “comments” section. I suggest that if you want your vote to count, that you chose the option that best fits your views. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for your concern, I would indeed like to vote for not linking MM-DD in any article, and wish my vote to be counted as such, and not just as a comment. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I suggest you vote for both optoin #1s and state what you really think in your comment. There is no “option zero.” This is the best way to have an impact on the outcome. By far. Greg L (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. See User_talk:Loosmark#Since_you_asked. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  P.P.S. A huge, huge amount of effort went into designing the structure of the RfC. Believe me, this issue of “no linking at all” came up. It was not included as an option for a reason. Please try to affect change by using the options available. Believe me, that is the best route. Further, you should know that your edit comment is more meaningful than your !vote. Edit comments are central to understanding the community consensus and the reasoning of the editors comprising our community. If you really want no linking, I would suggest that both option #1s are your best course and that you should leave a cogent, well considered comment that you don’t thing any dates (years, or month-days, or both) should be linked. Greg L (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I voted oppose to number 1, stating my views and counting as closely as possible. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well aren’t you stubborn? But I suppose that will be counted as a “support” vote. Your comment makes your views abundantly clear that date linking blows. Greg L (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

I don't understand why this image was tagged. Retreived from here, it's released under Creative Commons 2.0, which links to a page that states "You are free to copy, transmit, and distribute this work." If anything, it's incorrectly labeled as Creative Commons 3.0 instead of 2.0 . Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the 'Creative Commons 2.0' license. There are different types of Creative Commons licenses -- that image has a license with a non-commercial clause, which means that we cannot use it freely. Thanks, — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en  ?? Wikipedia is commercial? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider non-commercial licenses to be free, no, and that is why it is at PUF. — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the support. Which ones do you like? I always try to improve Wiki as best I can. So you're a Phillies fan I gather? Its really sad about the death of Harry Kalas. He made NFL Films what they are today, I always loved watching them on NFL Network just to hear his voice.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer won't ever be the same without the Voice of Harry. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither will NFL Films NFL Network Tribute to Harry Kalas - The Voice (from NFL.com) TomCat4680 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi,

EVOC is the Emergency Vehicle Operator Certification course, or something very similar. It's a training program in the US, and perhaps Canada, for training drivers of emergency vehicles. A CEVO is a grduate of that course: a Certified Emergency Vehicle Operator.

Hope this helps!

-Badger151 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it certainly could. I will give it a look over the next couple of days. This weekend is pretty free, so I should have some time to chuck something together.

I expanded the article.

Phils) 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comments on the Pace count beads article. Also, thanks for serving. Happy New Years to you. FieldMarine (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Vigilans, sir! I am wondering if you have any desire to put in some of the decorations (such as badges) of the Civil Air Patrol, in addition to the awards. I'll try to help, but you'll probably be more knowledgeable. C/Amn 72.74.109.87 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see your Colo Wing of CAP wiki subpage migrated to a full wiki page. Would you do the honors or may I?? Thank you so much, cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk)

Certainly. I've found that my time is more valuable now and haven't been wikiin' much lately. I hope perhaps some of the info is useful -- it's basically the same format from my PAWG page. Don't forget to include information about the GSAR school, and perhaps the yearly trek to Carl Spaatz's grave at USAFA. Fightin' Phillie 22:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to expand on your page. I'll refer back to your above cooments as I go thru the page. Have a wonderful Holiday season! Cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any cited refs for "Trek to Spaatz's grave". Got a big chunk done... history next. Cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Maj Gen Curry; my bad. a link It's become part of the Colorado CAP culture -- you'll find plenty of examples (especially in the Denver/GP1 area) of cadets receiving the Curry achievement at the memorial. Fightin' Phillie 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Phillie,

On the talk page for the above mentioned article, you mentioned that there was an articles for deletion discussion, but I can't find it. Could you locate that for me? Please post not here but at Talk:Civil Air Patrol Ranger Tape. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on the article one day. 13:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Fightin' Phillie! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the SarahStierch (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender
   topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information
   , broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The
   standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
   for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Fightin' Phillie. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of National Cadet Special Activities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Cadet Special Activities until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of National Cadet Special Activities, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Cadet Special Activities until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]